but it still might be the best of whole long list of poor options.
Nope, their approach is so bad that they have managed to take a cause the majority of people probably agree with, and from that starting point somehow managed to turn the vast majority of the public massively against them
As has been said already the government won’t concede to their demands as the public is not on their side. All they are doing is turning people against their cause and probably getting new laws passed that will hinder the rights of future protesters. They are doing more harm than good.
Given where the overwhelming consensus is on climate change I think it is the moral duty of political parties to stand on a platform of climate action.
There are lots of ways of doing that whether levering the private sector through tax breaks and penalties, regulations etc or directly through state investment - or ideally a combination of both. Those are the choices that should be presented to the electorate
To deny climate change or propose woefully insufficient action purely because it would play well with sufficient of the electorate (and with our crappy first past the post system could be a minority) is an immoral position for a mainstream political party
TBH - what we are missing in politics is leadership, there should be a collective will to drive opinion that action is needed on climate change
Perfectly stated @olddog.
Problem also is that without the strong will and consensus of the electorate in the same direction then we simply have a case of humanity being a failure at every level.
olddog gets my vote!
Nope, their approach is so bad that they have managed to take a cause the majority of people probably agree with, and from that starting point somehow managed to turn the vast majority of the public massively against them
I'm on holiday this week and thus sworn off arguing with people on social media, but this needs to be called out for the apologist bollocks that it is.
Given where the overwhelming consensus is on climate change I think it is the moral duty of political parties to stand on a platform of climate action.
Idealistic at best, silly at worst.
The more you want the govt to do this or that, the more you give them the power and one day they will come back to bite you or your next generation(s).
Do you want to turn UK into China? Do you know how it is like living in 1984 (the book)?
People can protest as that's a way of life in UK. Protest at will and have a good laugh whatever but others should also be able to protest against the protesters too.
p/s: I just can't stop laughing every time I imagine that bloke with his face glued to the tarmac. I kept imagining a dog suddenly poo in front of his face while he is glued to the tarmac. I nearly chocked myself drinking coffee while imagining this in the office. LOL!
the will of the people
The government needs to “firm up” the commitments it made when it was elected, and since. If it is to meet the targets it has set itself, and already promised “the people” of the UK and other countries it is going to meet, then it needs multiple new policies to move the UK to using less carbon… and it can’t ignore domestic heating. It especially can’t ignore the updating of social housing stock. Making sure this happens is not your job, or my job, it is the government’s job.
The more you want the govt to do this or that, the more you give them the power and one day they will come back to bite you or your next generation(s).
The more you want the govt to do this or that, the more you give them the power and one day they will come back to bite you or your next generation(s).
What on earth are you on about?
What on earth are you on about?
Keep forcing the agenda on the govt and in turn the govt use that to justify forcing on others ... what if the agenda is from minority views only?
In China that's how agenda is forced on the people based on minority view (politburo) and justified.
If you wish to change things then vote for it. No need to go around preventing others from earning a living. Not everyone is a wealthy retired person that can afford their spare time forcing agendas on others.
Pretty sure that was not the point you were making - but anyway more people voted for parties with actual climate polices, then the current government.
Pretty sure that was not the point you were making – but anyway more people voted for progressive parties with actual climate polices, then the current government.
Convince the people rather than making life difficult for them.
Go protest at the embassies of those nations where virgin forest is cut down. They have a better chance of reducing global warming whatever with the forest then the protesters current puny efforts.
As said somewhere ... "Closed door and beat own children" (Chinese proverb). i.e. you punish your own people because you can't convince others to change.
P/s: 1984 is coming ...
I noticed in a recent interview the representative of IB was so passionate about insulating homes he hadn't even bothered to make the changes he is protesting for to his own home! Surely for some one with this much passion for something would have at least put their money where there mouth is or does he just expect someone else to pay for it?
Its hard to take them seriously when they wont even make the changes they want mandated for everyone themselves.
Did they own the building? How long had they lived there? Which changes do you mean?
He gives a brilliant interview.
Well worth watching.
That’s not an interview, it’s a clip from one. Is the whole interview posted anywhere?
I’m burning gas in my boiler right now. I have a diesel car parked outside. I still support the government having plans to move us away from burning gas and diesel. I’d support them speeding up those plans. Hypocrite?
With reference to the rough cost figures up there
Let's not forget the govt just spent (wasted?) 37 billion on track and trace.....maybe ask for some of that back?
That’s not an interview, it’s a clip from one. Is the whole interview posted anywhere?
I'm not sure if he does whole interviews. If you do a search you'll find another interview with him in the GMB studio where he suddenly gets up and walks away.
Making friends and influencing people doesn't seem to be his priority.
Presumably he doesn't think he needs that to secure his objectives.
Come on Earnie, you know how a clip tells a very selected story. Did he go onto say why the government needs to act, rather than leaving it to individuals to do so out of the goodness of their little hearts? Did he point out the catastrophic effects of climate change if we don’t act collectively, now? Any half decent media training would teach you to avoid supplying the likes of TalkRadio with these lovely little viral clips. He’s clearly useless at media interviews. Where’s a cuddly David Attenborough when you need one…?
I suspect insulation is probably down the list of improvements most tenants would ask their landlord to carry out in most cases
I suspect you're talking a load of shite about something you have very little understanding of and have been all day. Just a suspicion mind.
As for the apologist bollocks about this harming future protests, **** off and take on the real villains (the government) that make those anti-protest laws the reality. This is just an excuse, nothing more. Tories love a good anti-assembly law eh?
Where’s a cuddly David Attenborough when you need one…?
Probably travelling round the world making films about how bad climate change is and that we shouldn’t travel as much whilst not seeing the irony of his own actions
Probably travelling round the world making films about how bad climate change is and that we shouldn’t travel as much whilst not seeing the irony of his own actions
Yeah, David Attenborough's DEFINITELY the problem (I mean, he doesn't travel for his documentaries any more, but yeah, HE'S the problem).
Come on Earnie, you know how a clip tells a very selected story.
I don't have a monopoly over internet access. You find a clip that you like and post on here.
And yeah the point of the clip was to show him calling himself a hypocrite and saying that he doesn't care about insulation, what's wrong with that? Do you think the confession was beaten out of him?
I don't know why you always seem to struggle spelling the name Ernie btw, it's quite a common name. It would make sense if it could be interpreted as an insult.
Not meant as an insult, sorry, just seem to always trip over it. I’ll try harder not to.
Do you think the confession was beaten out of him?
I doubt it. Was he just saying what he knew they were going to say, to stop them going down that route, so he could then get on with trying to explain what action is needed quickly, and why that action needs to come from the government? I was genuinely asking if you knew where the full interview could be seen as you posted the “news” item built almost entirely around that little out of context clip.
I’m on holiday this week and thus sworn off arguing with people on social media, but this needs to be called out for the apologist bollocks that it is.
How very convenient… 😏
You would honestly try to argue that the public are on their side?
You would honestly try to argue that the public are on their side?
Who ****ing cares? It's not the public that makes laws it's the government. Sometimes governments do things which the public aren't happy about, sometimes as a force for good (legislating for minimum standards of insulation for example) and sometimes as a force for bad (banning legitimate avenues of protest).
Those that excuse the government banning legitimate protest are nothing more than apologists throwing rights out with the bath water. The problem isn't people giving the government their excuse, the problem is people allowing them to legislate against those people.
First they came...
and it became clear quite quickly that the right to protest is all but gone here
banning legitimate protest
This is rubbish though, isn’t it?
There’s protests all the time in London and other places. Thousands, indeed tens of thousands on the street protesting all sorts of things
The thing is that peaceful protest doesn’t(and never has) mean a right to break the law by obstructing the highway, causing a public nuisance, threatening people or smashing things up.
Why are they "crusties"? Is desperately trying to halt the tide of inevitable loss of quality of life of billions of people crusty? Is that the most discriptive term you can manage?
This is rubbish though, isn’t it?
Have you seen the proposed law? Do you think leaving the definition of "serious disruption" to the home secretary bearing in mind either only raging authoritarians get that job or they get reprogrammed on day one is a good idea?
Thousands, indeed tens of thousands on the street protesting all sorts of things
Which are generally ignored. Hence why if you want to get noticed and tend towards all good publicity is good publicity then more aggressive action tends to be the only way.
I mean, he doesn’t travel for his documentaries any more, but yeah, HE’S the problem
i stand corrected. It’s just the film crew, directors, researchers and fixers who do all the travelling to fragile environments for weeks at a time for 5 minutes of tv
My point is that it is always those wanting change want everyone else to change but not them
Who **** cares? It’s not the public that makes laws it’s the government. Sometimes governments do things which the public aren’t happy about, sometimes as a force for good (legislating for minimum standards of insulation for example) and sometimes as a force for bad (banning legitimate avenues of protest).
You don’t think that perhaps just maybe having the public on their side would make them a little harder to ignore?
Fact is this government won’t do anything for the greater good..and that’s even more true when they don’t have to go against popular opinion
Have you seen the proposed law?
I haven't seen details but the one thing above all others that concerns me most about Boris Johnson, and it concerns deeply, is his level of commitment to democracy and human rights. I think in that respect he differs very little, if at all, from the likes of Thatcher and Tebbit.
What makes my concern even more acute is that I have zero faith in the current leader of the Labour Party, someone whom I consider incapable, or more likely unwilling, to offer any effective opposition.
Highly organised, effective, and vocal opposition, would seriously limit Johnson's ability to encroach on our freedoms and rights, however without it he is obviously given a carte blanche.
Keir Starmer is simply unwilling to take a stance which would put him at loggerheads with the Daily Mail, the Sun, and other hard-right newspapers. The man is even more spineless than Jeremy Corbyn.
As this example so tragically illustrates :
Which are generally ignored. Hence why if you want to get noticed and tend towards all good publicity is good publicity then more aggressive action tends to be the only way.
Except, again it’s simply not true is it?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/feb/17/forest-sell-off-victory
Government policy changed on the back of entirely non-violent, public campaigns which didn’t need to smash things up, or obstruct anyones jobs & daily lives.
You've kinda answered your own question there. Remember the last time the public marched en masse against the government? That worked well didn't it. Still needed up in Iraq because we had a narcissistic fud that knew better in charge.
I haven’t seen details but the one thing above all others that concerns me most about Boris Johnson, and it concerns deeply, is his level of commitment to democracy and human rights. I think in that respect he differs very little, if at all, from the likes of Thatcher and Tebbit.
What makes my concern even more acute is that I have zero faith in the current leader of the Labour Party, someone whom I consider incapable, or more likely unwilling, to offer any effective opposition.
Highly organised, effective, and vocal opposition, would seriously limit Johnson’s ability to encroach on our freedoms and rights, however without it he is obviously given a carte blanche.
Keir Starmer is simply unwilling to take a stance which would put him at loggerheads with the Daily Mail, the Sun, and other hard-right newspapers. The man is even more spineless than Jeremy Corbyn.
As this example so tragically illustrates :
Does you political compass point anywhere other than something to blame on Labour? You may have missed it but BJ has a healthy majority, it matters not a bit what Starmer or anyone else thinks because they can do the sum total of **** all to oppose him.
Besides, I thought BJ was a good socialist Tory? Weren't you gushing over how far left of Thatcher he was just a short while ago?
...who do all the travelling to fragile environments for weeks at a time for 5 minutes of tv
5 minutes of tv? That's how you describe some of the most respected TV programmes in the world?
And the TV programmes that David Attenborough narrates are never just about entertainment. They provide an absolutely vital educational role to TV audiences throughout the world.
It is only by overcoming ignorance and educating people that the determination to stop trashing our planet will come about.
.
It is only by overcoming ignorance and educating people that the determination to stop trashing our planet will come about.
I don't think any the folks who have it in their power to make the changes we need to make in order to keep our species alive is truly ignorant or needs further education about what we're doing to the climate.
You would honestly try to argue that the public are on their side?
I'm just calling out your apologist bollocks - anything more is just in your head.
What do we want?
Viglantes taking out protestors!
Nope. But if a small group of individuals choose to prevent hundreds, thousands or more from being able to get to work, school, medical appointments etc, then 'democracy' means those protestors need to move aside, and reasonable force is justified in making them do so. I don't condone any violence or abuse against legitimate protestors, or indeed anyone who simply wants to protest an issue, but if the consensus if that these kind of protests just causes unnecessary grief for ordinary people, then those protestors need to listen to the opinions of the majority, and stop being selfish ****s, regardless of their cause.
Those that excuse the government banning legitimate protest are nothing more than apologists throwing rights out with the bath water.
What utter nonsense. For a start, these aren't 'legitimate' protests anyway; preventing people from exercising freedom to go wherever they want/need to, when your real target for attention is the government, is just ****ing stupid. Because it has a massively negative impact on all of society. Indeed, it's ridiculous accusations such as this, which turn me away from the protestors even more. Every day, they are losing mine and the public's support. So time they stood back and thought about what they're doing. Cos it's not working.
*Turns heating up even more. Opens window to get some fresh air*
Every day, they are losing mine and the public’s support.
You speak on behalf of the public? Cool story, bro.
I don’t think any the folks who have it in their power to make the changes we need to make in order to keep our species alive is truly ignorant or needs further education about what we’re doing to the climate.
Yeah I am obviously referring to the BBC and David Attenborough playing a vital role in educating us all - the wider public.
All government ministers ultimately get to their positions through elections. The environment should be an issue at the forefront in elections.
Nor do I believe that governments and ministers fully understand all issues concerning the environment and know exactly what needs to be done, I consider them to be fairly average sort of people without necessarily specific expertise.
The idea that the BBC shouldn't produce the programmes it does which are narratated David Attenborough because they are bad for the environment and is therefore hypocritical, as suggested on the previous page of this thread, is ridiculous.
You speak on behalf of the public?
No, but it's pretty clear the majority of people now oppose the actions of IB, even if they agree with the sentiments. Ignore the majority at your peril...
I consider them to be fairly average sort of people without necessarily specific expertise.
Sure, I think the man on the Clapham omnibus is aware of the damage Co2 is doing to our climate, that's all that really needs to be understood. The politicians also don't need any expertise, they have advisors for that. But only they have the power to decide on and enforce legislation.
and know exactly what needs to be done
There are some fairly obvious steps that could be done straight away that could make massive in-roads into reducing the damage, again you'd have to have lived under a rock not to know this, and even if politicians are just average folk, they know it as well. I don't think anyone has all the answers, sure, but perfect is the enemy of good, we can adjust as we go along, but we have to start.
Some widely admired people who ran unpopular movements:
The Suffragettes - similar tactics to insulate britain plus smashing up places, burning the houses of rich people down and a bombing campaign.
Nelson Mandela wasn't averse to bombing churches and killing children.
Our combined man-made biodiversity crisis (mass extinction event), global heating and trashing of the natural world - upon which our very lives rely - is *more* urgent than votes for girls or black emancipation in South Africa.
Insulate Britain / Extinction Rebellion *know* that they're going to be unpopular with an idiot public who are so poorly educated they can't comprehend the consequences of running our society in the way we do. They're not *trying* to "get the public on board" - any more than the Suffragettes or Mandela did - they're forcing the issue. In time-honoured tradition.
Expect direct action to escalate - we're going to go from peaceful protest - which is what this is - to violent action in the coming years - because governments have failed to do anything meaningful in the last 70 years that we've known about these issues.
On the alleged deaths caused by protestors stopping people getting to hospital:
I went to University in the early 90's, full of idealism to study environmental management - and very quickly learned that governmental action was the only thing that could make meaningful difference - and consequently learned that, at best, they were only interested in greenwashing and can-kicking. The level of actions are *still* hugely inadequate.
A maldivian guy, very intelligent lad, was paid for by his government to come to the UK and attend my course - in the vain hope that he'd become a voice for his people. Their whole country is in the firing line. (Along with the mass movement of people that is going to increase towards the back end of this century - precipitating intensified war).
Why should we in the UK, who were the heartland of the coal-and-fossil-fuel based industrial revolution that was the start of our problems be immune from the death that this crisis is causing around the planet?
Whilst I'm sure anyone involved regrets any horrible outcomes it's very easy to justify continued action along the lines they're taking - and more - because of the urgency of the problem and the devestating consequences that the world is already experiencing.
So stop "shooting the messenger" - and start hammering the government?
Of course, we won't, as a species we're as dumb as a box of frogs. The tories are *increasing* their share of the vote. Labour are just as useless and we won't vote for the "loonies" who will put the environment ahead of our economy.
Just gonna leave this here. Once again the parody/reality line gets thinner.
